is limited by our Statute Laws none of which do appoint or approve any such Oath Nor can it be expected that if Episcopacy should be reduced to the Primitive Institution such tyranny will ever be again endured And as for that Oath what doth it require but obedience in omnibus licitis honestis which our late Episcopacy least cared for The Laws tye all men to things lawful and honest And if so then the same Doctor hath furnished me with an Argument strong enough to retort upon the Author of it against that Canonical Oath which himself urgeth against the Covenant pag. 15. inverting onely the name of the Covenant into that of this Oath They are not the bare words of the Oath of Canonical Obedience which as Charms can bind any mans Conscience to or against any thing but it is the force of Truth Reason Justice Religion and Duty to God and man our selves or others which morally and really obligeth men either by Gods general or particular Precepts which are as Iron and Adamantine Bands on every mans soul to chuse good and do it to hate evil and eschew it long before any of these withes or cords of mans combining or tying are put upon them By which he argues the needlesness of the Covenant and so do I of the unwarranted Oath of Canonical Obedience And if this Oath should be extended to obey such Bishops as Wren Peirce and others in all they of late enjoyned there is much more cause to conclude against it then against the Covenant though it should be extended to extirpation of all Episcopacy in the words of this Doctor pag. 8. It is therein of no bond or validity as to any good mans Conscience And so farewel such an Oath And touching the Kings Oath there is nothing obliging him further then to preserve that Government so far as it is agreeable to and warranted by the holy Scripture and Primitive Institution so far he condescended at the Isle of Wight And who requireth more And yet even this also may be changed by his Royal Assent to the Counsel and Desire of the two Houses of Parliament as this Doctor doth more then tacitely admit pag. 18. Cannot the Legislative Power change Government by Bishops as well as abrogate other Laws This is to charge some with perjury which he dareth not to name to fright others with a scare-Crow or man of Clouts and to condemn all the Churches of Christ that have laid Episcopacy aside His next Quarrel at the Covenant if it abjure all Episcopacy is this That it runs us upon a great Rock not onely of Novelty but of Schism and dasheth us both in opinion and practise against the Judgement and Custome of the Catholique Church in all places and ages till of latter years * He means till Calvin See his Dendrology in his sighs tears c from the Apostles days This he often harps upon in a Magisterial Traditionary way But once prove that our abolished Episcopacy was of so antient and universal Observation Et eris mihi Magnus Apollo Whoever will but read the judgement of Doctor John Reynolds concerning Episcopacy expressed in a Letter to Sir Francis Knolls in the year 1598. and Dr. Vshers Tract called The Reduction of Episcopacy proposed in the year 1641. will soon find this mans bold Assertion to dwindle into a vapor In the eighth place Pag. 10. under colour of propounding the Loyal and Religious sense of it he dasheth it with unlawfulness to be taken at all For when he would have men to retire to the sober sense wherein alone it might lawfully be taken he addeth an Alloy If it had been imposed by due Authority This sheweth his denial of the lawfulness of it And so in stead of satisfying a scrupulous Conscience how to take the Covenant a right he cunningly deterreth from the taking of it at all is not this Jugling By due Authority he meaneth Supreme Authority as is clear by his next Answer in examining whereof I shall endeavour to lay open the weakness and falshood of this suggestion Ninthly Pag. 0. he tells you It were easie to level to the ground all those fair but fallacious pretences drawn to fortifie the Covenant from Scripture-examples wherein the Jews sometimes solemnly renewed their Covenant with God But it was that express Covenant which God himself had first made with them in Horeb and Mount Sinai punctually prescribed by God to Moses and by Moses as their Supreme Governour or King imposed upon them This they sometimes renewed after they had broken it by their Apostacy to false and strange gods But this was not the case of the Church or people of England nor was there any need of such covenanting any more then there was any Moses or Hezekiah or Josiah or any chief Governour commanding it As the Hatlot is forward to call her Whore first with whom she unjusty quarrelleth so this Deceiver cries out upon the fallaciousness of the Covenant because he seeks fallaciously to take off all men from it In this reviling of his there are falshoods enow I will instance in some First it is false that there was no Covenant but of Gods own prescribing and secondly that he prescribed but one I shall for brevity discover the falshood of both these together If none but of his prescribing what meaneth that of this Doctors own quoting before Num. 30.2 which was spontaneous What that of Joshua and the Princes of the Congregation with the cheating Gibeonites Josh 9.15 And what that to omit sundry other of the children of Israel and the children of Judah after the Babylonish Captivity who joyned themselves to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant never to be forgotten Jer. 50.5 These were all several Covenants of different kinds none of them prescribed yet all of them allowed and the breach of them punished by God To this may be added what the Vniversity of Oxford in their Reasons against the Covenant by general consent in Convocation June 1. 1647. Sect. 2. pag. 2 3. saith for it self that they are unsatisfied because the Covenant is imposed which is repugnant to the nature of a Covenant which being a contract implyeth a voluntary mutual consent of the Contractors It is also false that the Covenant on Mount Sinai was imposed by Moses as the Supreme Governour or King on the people For Moses was no more their Supreme Governour or King then Samuel to whom the people impetuously cryed for a King to judge them like all the Nations i 1 Sam. 8.5 when the Lord himself was their King k 1 Sam. 12 12. Nor did Moses but God himself impose that Covenant in Horeb as their Supreme Governour if Moses may be believed For he tells us that The Lord talked with them face to face in the Mount out of the midst of the fire Moses onely stood between the Lord and them at that time to shew them the word of the Lord. l Deut. 5.4
Cogshal and Mr. Matthew Newcomen of Dedham But this Doctor was chosen neither there nor any where else as by the Ordinance it self is obvious to every eye that will peruse it And had it been otherwise he had not been permitted as I can tell him in his ear to have been absent from the Assembly And why should he so much complain and bewayle his not being permitted to sit in that Assembly which he so much vilifieth and calleth A sifted Sequatious Assembly c Tears c p. 213. a Scot-English Assembly which were as the grand Inquest the Promoters or Apparitors to the Long Parliamen d Pag. 334. Rabbies sitting in Moses Chair e Ibid. And then taking it for granted that the Assembly were the Annotators on the Bible which is altogether untrue he chargeth them so as if they were Chaplains at once serving the Lord their Bellies and the times as partaking of the Table of the lord and the Table of Devils f Ibid pag. 334. I forbear to foul more paper with the rest of his Billinsgate Rhetorick bestowed on that Assembly But now mark the inference He is angry that he having right was not permitted to sit in that Assembly Therefore his anger must needs be for this that he could not be a Sequatious Assembly-man one of the Grand Inquest a Promoter and Apparitor of the Long Parliament a Chaplain at once serving the Lord his Belly and the times and a Partaker of the Table of Devils as well as of the Lord. O what pity is it that he fate not Surely I have so much charity for him if I may judge of the tree by this fruit as to believe and profess that if the Assembly had been such as he describeth it he had better right to fit in it then any that sate there Indeed his last mentioned expression of the Assembly as being Chaplains at once serving the Lord their Bellies and the Times arose from his Bilious Passion at the Annotators for not finding a knot in a Bulrush and that from some Textst hey did not brand that for Sacrilege which he had done whether those Texts condemn it or not But I must not further make an Excursion upon this but leave him to D. B. upon whom he hath bestowed 10 whole leaves in Folio in that his scoulding Tears c. of his Mother g See p 685 c. in nothing but raving rayling belying the Doctor without affording one line in a serious solid sober confuting of either that Doctors Definition of Sacrilege any Text of Scripture or other Arguments or Reasons for his opinion or to disprove the same But you will say what is that to me I confess this is a digression therefore I will say no more but onely advise Dr. John to spend half the time if he can spare no more in perusing D. B. his second Edition of that Tract of Sacrilege which D. J. G. cannot but have seen that he hath trifled away in rayling upon D. B. and to confute that Book if he can because as I hear he hath promised so to do This if he will once perform like a Scholar and a Divine then whereas D. G. hath in his Sighs h pag. 664. c. said most gravely that D. B. by his late purchase will give the world cause in after-ages to look as narrowly to him and his posterity how they thrive as the Roman Souldiers did to the Jews Guts and Excrements when they searched for the Gold which they had swallowed as Josephus * De excid Hieros tells us I dare undertake that then if D. G. will either desire to be the Groom of D. B. his Stool or to be at the charge thereof he shall have all that comes from him and his without purloyning or the least diminution 2. But as to what he saith of others having right to sit that they were not permitted either by popular faction and tumult or by other shufflings and reasons of State which took care to exclude or deter all the excellent Bishops and the most able of Episcopal Divines c. is a most gross and malicious untruth For among those that were chosen and summoned to sit in that Assembly what say you to Dr. Richard Love Dr. Raph. Brownrig Bishop of Exceter D. Samuel Ward Dr. John Harris Dr. Robert Saunderson Mr. Robert Cross James Archbishop of Armagh D. Matthias Styles Dr. Featly Dr. Christopher Pashly Dr. John Hacket Dr. Thomas Westfield Bishop of Bristol Dr. Henry Hammon Dr. Rich. Oldsworth and many moe Where can you pick out three Bishops more excellent for learning and piety or other Episcopal Divines more able of 122 Divines chosen to sit there were 24 that never appeared And even in the Assembly some protested against the extirpation of Primitive Episcopacy of which Mr. Herbert Palmer was one And Dr. Burges was suspended from sitting there by the House of Commons for declaring and protesting against the first draught of the Covenant brought into the Assembly for that among other things there was required an extirpation of Prelacy indefinitely and absolutely without either limitation or explication As for those that came not who excluded or deterred them they were all summoned as appears by the Books of the Assembly What hindred them was it not either because they liked not the Election or the Persons chosen to sit with them or that they being for the late King durst not to sit either for fear of molestation by the Parliament or displeasure of the King For the manner of Election it was no other for kind although more Solemn and warrantable than that antecedaneous choice which the Lords had made of sundry Lords Bishops and other Divines to consult at the Deans House of Westminster touching reformation in matters of Religion at which none then boggled but all readily joyned in it For the persons chosen to sit with them they were all of them reputed to be able and pious far beyond many that sate in the usual Convocations wherein sometimes Lay-men as Chancellors and Registers * Witness the Chancelor and Register of Lincoln chosen at once to sit in Convocation in the last Kings reign Which two a great Prelatical Doctor that knew them well called Simeon and Levi the Devil and his Damme upon occasion of that their Election were admitted as well as some members of both Houses of Parliament in the late Assembly So that if this offended them who now refused to sit in it the offence was rather taken then given And as for any fear of trouble from the Parliament or of displeasure of his then Majesty it was but a pannick fear without ground For being called by the Parliament the Parliament was bound to protect them Yea had they not been so chosen yet if they had continued sober quiet and peaceable they needed not to have feared the Parliament Witness that quiet sober prudent Dr. Juckson Bishop of London who lived quietly and without all
danger of violence or imprisonment in the Parliament-Quarters yet was he a man known to be firm to the King in the greatest divisions and differences between the King and Parliament so might all these have done carrying themselves as he did And as for the Kings displeasure there could be as little fear of that For he never was displeased with the Bishop of Londons abode here but highly respected and honoured him to the last It is true he never sate in the Assembly because not chosen a Member of it Yet the Prince Elector Palatine sate there without offence to his Majesty And albeit his Majesty at first disliked the calling and sitting of that Assembly yet afterwards he liked and approved of what they had done as appears by the Message he sent to both Houses of Parliament Octob. 11. 1648. wherein among other things he was pleased to express himself touching the Assembly thus As to that part of the Proposition for the calling and sitting of the Assembly of Divines His Majesty saith That he will by Act of Parliament confirm the calling and sitting of the said Assembly since the first of July 1643. And that they shall have such powers as are mentioned in the said Ordinance And that they shall continue their meeting and sitting and be dissolved in such manner as both Houses of Parliament shall direct But enough of this second point It is sufficient that the Doctor in the midst of all his revilings and slanders hath acknowledged so many to concur in the ture sense of the Covenant III. PROPOSITION That notwithstanding all that he hath spoken touching the true sense of the Covenant and so great a concurrence in it he endeavoureth to vilifie make odious and to destroy the Covenant it self as his main design IN the entrance to his Answers and Solutions for satisfying of all sober and honest mens Consciences to take off their shyness of all manner of Episcopacy he begins thus pag. 6. To prevent which sad metamorphosis that is in turning Covenanters into pillars of Apostacies in City and Country my Answer and Resolution in point of Conscience so far as it relates to Episcopacy is this But in the Margent he calls his Answers oblique And they are oblique indeed for he begins them thus First he boasteth that he can shrewdly batter the Covenant by urging the defectiveness and invalidity of it to bind either in conscience or in any other Judicatory because without the Kings consent Without this it binds no more then the Vow of a Servant Son Daughter or Wife could bind them without yea against the declared consent of their Master Father or Husband under whose protection they were pag. 6. Here see his good-will in this Battering Ram. To prove this he cites in his Margent Numb 30.2 which makes against him as I shall after demonstrate Mean while take notice that his instances of Servants and Sons is a Tale of a Tub there is no such thing That Chapter mentions onely Daughters in their Fathers house in their youth and Wives that are under Husbands when the Vow is made Nor are their Vows void for want of a declared consent as he talks but they are valid if Father or Husband bearing them made holdeth his peace vers 4. and vers 7. Who will trust such a false man that thus dares to falfifie an express Text of Scripture And whereas he cites in the Margent Num. 30.2 to prove the invalidity of Vows of Servants Sons Daughters Wives as aforesaid that second verse expresly makes against what he here alledged it for His intention is to prove the Covenant invalid because taken by men without the Royal consent To prove that he produceth this Text. But the Text speaks onely of a Vow made by a man and tells us that all such Vows are binding If a MAN vow a vow unto the Lord and swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond he shall not break his word he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth Here is not the least hint of any Exception no not so much as of a Son under his Father but all men that vow are by God held unto it whether the chief Governour consent or not It is onely the vow of a woman in minority or Matrimony which may be made void as is manifest in the subsequent verses but not in that As for his Eccho and retorting the Violence and Noise of the times and the Midwifery of tumults and Armies upon the Covenant His further urging the Novelty and partiality of it Page 7. The sad and Tragique Effects which he malitiously imputeth to the Covenant it self the bafflings and annulling of it by Counter and gross Engagements after it had served as one of the great Rocks for the late Kings Shipwrack these are all such nototious untruths that nothing but impudence it self raised to its Meridian would dare to avouch or own I therefore pass through this mire without answering this wise Doctor according to his scurrilous folly But as to his sixth Oblique Answer pag. 8. wherein he saith It is very considerable how the Covenant if interpreted against all Episcopacy must needs grate sore upon and pierce to the very quick those former lawful Oathes where he takes it for granted that the Covenant is not lawful not onely that of Allegiance and Supremacy and Canonical Obedience but that of the King at his Coronation And he after adds that there cannot be any Superfetation of such a contradictory Vow and Covenant without apparent perjury I must here make bold to tell him first supposing the Covenant to be against all Episcopacy what is that to the Oaths of Supremacy and Aliegiance to his Majesty Can no man be true to Kings but he that is for Bishops Verily this very Doctor herein contradicts and confutes this absurd Assertion at pag. 25. where he saith Doubtless the sence of the Covenant hath lately quickned many mens Consciences in the Allegiance to the King so to bring him as David home with infinite joy and triumph Who acted most in re-introducing the secluded Members in procuring a free Parliament and in bringing home his present Majesty whom God bless and preserve but Covenanteers Nor is there any syllable in the Covenant contrary to but altogether consistent with and inciting to the most vigorous performance of those two Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance To charge therefore the Covenant as contradictory to the former Oaths and as tending to apparent perjury is such manifest blasphemy against so sacred an Oath of God as cannot but be abhorred of all sober Christians Touching the Oath of Canonical Obedience to Bishops it is true they took upon them to impose such a tyrannical Yoke upon too many of their brethren But quo jure and how far were such Oaths Obligatory This was never found practised by Apostolick and Primitive Bishops nor warranted by any Law of this Land but onely derived from the Canon Law which here
heart and with all their soul That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great whether man or woman and they swore unto the Lord with a loud voice And all Judah rejoyced at the oath and be was found of them and the Lord gave them rest round about 2 Chron. 15.12 13 c. Here was a National Covenant and a Divine acceptance of it Yet no word or syllable of Asa as imposing or confirming of it Which is evidence enough that the imposing or consenting of a King is not of the essence of a Legitimate Covenant It is enough that God owns it and commands performance Nor can any one instance be given throughout the whole Book of God that any Oath Vow or Covenant to which the King or Supreme Magistrate would not or did nor consent was upon that reason or groud made null and void or that any King ever went about to vacate and adnul any Covenant made with God without the consent of the King It is then no other but blaspheming the Gods to term the late Parliament bungling Reformers for doing Church-work without the Master-builders Kings and Bishops if he refer it to the Covenant If he doth not so then this is but a piece of railing Non-sense pull'd in by head and ears to vent his gaul upon his betters Do not all Parliaments advise and consult with whom they think meet even in matters of Religion and Ecclesiastical affairs as well as Civil and Vote and pass them before they offer them to the King did they not so in this And did not his then Majesty take them into consideration and condescend to so much as they gave him time to consider of without declaring against the rest but only suspending consent till his Conscience might be better satisfied Nay even that which was never offered to his Majesty at all being no way contrary or contradictory to the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance was never opposed or contradicted by him Witness the Protestation of May 5. 1641. taken by both Houses of Parliament and afterwards by the House of Commons alone imposed on all the Kingdom without so much as asking his Majesties consent which was never controuled or disallowed by the King albeit he was then in Person residing at White-hall and could not be ignorant of what was done therein And what ails the man to make such a noise about the imposing of the Solemn League and Covenant without the then King who was then absent Did not both Ezra and Nehemiah also draw all the people into a solemn Covenant with God t Ezra 10.3 Neh. 9.38 without special Commissions unless for reparing the Temple from the Persian Monarch then their Soveraign albeit they were not free Subjects but Vassals and one of them the menial servant of Artaxerxes then by Conquest Supreme Governour of Judah Nor did his late Majesty ever command the renouncing of the said Solemn League and Covenant taken by both Kingdoms Sept. 11. 1643. albeit he published a Proclamation Jun. 21. in the 19th year of his Reign viz. An. 1643. against that other Vow and Covenant which was about that time taken by the Lords and Commons and by them appointed to be taken by every man in the Cities of London Westminster and the Suburbs thereof and throughout the whole Kingdom the administring and taking of which by such as had not taken it were by that Proclamation for the reasons therein contained forbidden But albeit this were lately by an enemy to the other Solemn League and Covenant without warrant reprinted and scattered up and down as if it had been an interdicting and prohibiting those that had taken it to perform it and to give some countenance to that railing Pamphlet of the Doctor here laid open in his colours in hope that Ignorant ones would surely thereupon cast off that Covenant of God yet that was but a meer cheat and gullery of which it behoves all honest men and sober Christians to take notice and beware Nor are Oaths and Covenants once solemnly taken to be cast off and disclaimed upon any pretence whatsoever be there never so many defects and failings in the imposing or taking of them unless the matter of them be sinful as that of those Jews that bound themselves under an Oath of Execration or curse not to eat or drink till they had killed Paul u Act. 23.14 This I have said enough unto already yet do repeat it because since the writing of the premises I have met with a Book intituled The Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which have been laid aside for many years c. which tells us w Pag. 5. That though there be many infirmities and miscarriages committed in the making and taking of publique Oaths and although the things they oblige unto be against the interest of the people and though the breach and violation thereof hath the countenance of fair and specious intents and ends seemingly conducing unto the publique good of the people yet neither all nor any of these pretentions doth either make void the obligations of those Oaths nor deliver the people from the great guilt of the sin which is committed in the violation thereof nor secure them from the dreadful judgement of God Who is the Author hereof I know not but I am confident that the Doctor and he aim both at one mark which makes me to alledge him It is true there is another Book lately reprinted bearing this Title Reasons of the present Judgement of the Vniversity of Oxford concerning the Solemn League and Covenant c. approved by general consent in a full Convocation June 1. 1647. in which Book many Reasons are alledged why those who were then Masters Scholars Officers and other Members of that Vniversity could not take that Covenant and another Negative Oath But that no way concerneth the present Case for their Reasons tend only to their own justification for their not taking of the Covenant and Oath then tendred to them not to fall upon others who had already taken it Therefore there is no need to add any Answers thereunto although he that caused it to be reprinted pretendeth to do it for the satisfaction of others which cannot in any sense reach those who have taken the Covenant already And now good Mr. Doctor think more seriously in cold blood of your high presumption in casting so much dirt upon that Covenant which his present gracious Majesty hath so highly honoured of which perhaps you may one day be required to render an account if men have any zeal for his Majesties honour I forbear Particulars in this but you may do well to lay to heart particularly what becomes you herein Nor hath this Kingdom onely entered into a Solemn League and Covenant themselves but they have approved even in Parliament what others have done in like cases abroad When the Kingdom of Scotland even without their King entred into a Solemn League
and Covenant among themselves before their joyning with England in this and were threatned to be chastised for that and other things by a puissant Army yet afterwards upon a through debate thereof in the Parliament of England it was declared by King and Parliament That our Brethren of Scotland had done nothing but what became Loyal and obedient Subjects and were thereupon by Act of Parliament publickly righted in all the Churches of this Kingdom where they had been defamed Yea See the Exhortation for 〈◊〉 the Covenant ordered by the House of Commons to be printed Feb. 9. 1643. the same Exhortation out of which the precedent Paragraph is extracted telleth us That neither this Doctrine nor Practise hath been formerly deemed seditious or unwarrantable by the former Princes that have sate upon the English Throne but justified and defended by Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory with the expence of much Treasure and Noble Blood in the united Provinces of the Netherlands combined not onely without but against the unjust violence of Philip the second of Spain first and chiefly in matters of Religion King James of like blessed memory followed her steps so far as to approve their union and to enter into League with them as free States which was after continued by his last Majesty who both by his Expedition for relief of Rochel in France and by his strict confederacy and Allyance with the the late Prince of Orange notwithstanding all the importunity of Spain to the contrary did set to his seal That all that had been done by his Royal Ancestors in maintenance of those who had so engaged and combined themselves was just and warrantable Thus Mr. Doctor I have given you some patterns of Covenanting Christians beside the Holy League in France the two Houses of Parliament whom you take pleasure every where to bespatter as if they were Fools and Rebels in England and our Brethren in Scotland I forbear to mention Germany the Cantons the Albigenses and others because I have said enough already to shew the fowlness of your Pen and the falshood of him that held it in saying there is no pattern of such a Covenant in any ages of the Church and that we never read nor heard of any Covenanting Christians until the Ligue Sainte in France except those who in Baptism were sprinkled with the blood of Christ and so entred into that Covenant c. pag. 11. I have now taken my walk through your gaudy Field but have gathered little fruit I therefore forbear further progress unless to take a view of Her whom you call Your dear Mother the Church of England pag. 5. I pray who and what is She Which Question I ask not as if I were of opinion that there is none such but to know of you whom you take Her to be I have read of one Mother of us all x Gal. 4.26 I know no more Mothers although I know more Churches I have read in the Articles of Religion established in 13 Eliz. cap. 12. y Art 19. That the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly administred according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same But you are not so rude an Vnderstander nor so uncritical a Speaker By the Church of England you plainly and charitably mean that part of mankind in this Polity or Nation which having been called baptised and instructed by lawful Ministers in the Mysteries and Duties of the Gospel maketh a joynt and publick Profession of the Christian Faith and Reformed Religion in the name and as the sense of the whole Nation c. Thus you in your Tears Sighs c. of the Church of England pag. 24. Then all man-kind in this Polity and Nation making such a Profession is your Dear Mother Are not you then Terrae Filius Sir St. Paul tells us Hierusalem which is above is the Mother of us all But you tell us Your Mother is not Hierusalem â—uâ— England which is below and not free Much joy may you have of her I can own her as a Church but not as a Mother I have read of no Mothers in the New Testament in relation to Churches but onely Hierusalem not Earthly but Coelestial and Babylon the great Whore the Mother of Harlots z Rev. 17.1 5. If the Doctor have found out a third much good may she do him Now I see what makes him so excentrick and extravagant namely his sucking too much of his Mothers Milk when she had eaten too much poysonous meat of Arminianism Socinianism and Popery And now Sir I shall for this time take my leave of you with this close that whereas you pag. 25. vant that in two days you finished those Answers and Solutions truly Sir I think so too and do believe that whoever shall carefully compare those Answers and Solutions with this Reply which cost more time will be of the same opinion and that the spirit of perversness pride and time-serving ambition did dictate them unto you POST-SCRIPT I Had almost forgotten your high Commendation of Dr. Ushers Model of reformed Episcopacy in his Reduction which for my part I dislike not Only I must take occasion hence to tell you or rather others that since the reprinting of that Reduction of Episcopacy into the form of a Synodical Government which little Piece was truly Dr. Ushers child there hath a Bastard appear'd which is called The Bishop of Armagh's Direction concerning the Liturgy and Episcopal Government said to be written at the request of the House of Commons in the year 1642. Which is a meer fiction and a lye For so Dr. Bernard in his Book intituled The judgement of the Archbishop of Armagh c. assureth us pag. 160 That in An. 1640. There was a Book printed intituled The Bishop of Armaghs judgment to the House of Parliament concerning the Liturgy and Episcopal Government And in An. 164â— another Book intituled Vox Hibernia being some pretended Notes of his at a Publique Fast Both these at his Petition were suppressed by Order from the House of Lords and Commons Feb. 11. 1641. And now revived to thrust out the other which is his Legitimate issue FINIS